Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the slow reply, I've been away on holiday the last couple of days and have not been online.

Also, my apologies for not posting an update before you asked. Things have been slowly moving but as yet no conclusions.

Here is what has happened since I sent my last update:

Over the winter holidays the membership of the working group changed due to the workload of other board committees. Jan-Bart and Kat stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy and Bishakha; I am still involved and agreed to chair the group. Of course any recommendations for statements or resolutions will go to the whole board. The Harrises are still involved as consultants on a "paid-as-needed" basis; if we want them to do any further research or facilitation they are available.

In my last message, I wrote that "The working group will be examining the recommendations more closely, soliciting Board member feedback on each of the recommendations to a greater degree than there was time for in the in-person meeting, working with the community and finally making a report to the full Board. The working group is expected to recommend next steps, including providing fuller analysis of the recommendations."

We did the first part of this (board member feedback); and are currently working on the analysis part. As you know the various recommendations fall into three kinds: philosophical, community-facing (such as changing specific community practices), and technical. I asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time looking into the recommendations that require technical work (7 & 9)* so that we can have more information about what's feasible and possible, and what it would take on the wmf/tech side and the community side. This does not mean they're developing these features now; it means I asked for possible specifications (since I am unfamiliar with what it would take in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the working group can make a more informed recommendation. The WMF won't develop anything without a board request.

You may notice that the "working with the community" part has been largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully reading** all of the public discussion to date, the working group has not actively worked with the community (at large) or specific community members. This is because I wanted to first focus on getting all of the board feedback and getting background information, and that has taken longer than I hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion that any changes can be made in how this organization works with controversial content (or even happily keeping the status quo) without community discussion (which there has been a lot of), consensus (which the recommendations were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not yet emerged), and hard work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages along with commons policy pages as a good place to discuss the issue; and people can still help the working group by working on summarization, analysis, and procedure advice for going forward.

I'll say that the board does not yet have a formal position on this whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much about that for fear of it being *taken* as an official board position.

You may read this message and think "ok, they're doing something" or you may read this message and think "the board has totally lost the way/not done their job on this issue" or you may not care :) Either way, feel free to write me or us, publicly or privately. Our next step as a working group will be a report to the board, likely at the march meeting.

Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and I am glad there is some work being done on them.

Do let us know again how things are progressing!

Best, Andreas

--- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists> > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] yahoo> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35 > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, > Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> > wrote: > > Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an update > on the activities of > > the working group looking into the recommendations > resulting from the 2010 > > Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content? > > > > Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there any > plans or discussions about > > implementing any of the recommendations? > > > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/215066?search_string=working%20group%20controversial%20content;#215066> > > > Andreas > > Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the slow reply, > I've been > away on holiday the last couple of days and have not been > online. > > Also, my apologies for not posting an update before you > asked. Things > have been slowly moving but as yet no conclusions. > > Here is what has happened since I sent my last update: > > Over the winter holidays the membership of the working > group changed > due to the workload of other board committees. Jan-Bart and > Kat > stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy and Bishakha; > I am still > involved and agreed to chair the group. Of course any > recommendations > for statements or resolutions will go to the whole board. > The Harrises > are still involved as consultants on a "paid-as-needed" > basis; if we > want them to do any further research or facilitation they > are > available. > > In my last message, I wrote that "The working group will be > examining > the recommendations more closely, soliciting Board member > feedback on > each of the recommendations to a greater degree than there > was time > for in the in-person meeting, working with the community > and finally > making a report to the full Board. The working group is > expected to > recommend next steps, including providing fuller analysis > of the > recommendations." > > We did the first part of this (board member feedback); and > are > currently working on the analysis part. As you know the > various > recommendations fall into three kinds: philosophical, > community-facing > (such as changing specific community practices), and > technical. I > asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time looking into > the > recommendations that require technical work (7 & 9)* so > that we can > have more information about what's feasible and possible, > and what it > would take on the wmf/tech side and the community side. > This does not > mean they're developing these features now; it means I > asked for > possible specifications (since I am unfamiliar with what it > would take > in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the working group can > make a more > informed recommendation. The WMF won't develop anything > without a > board request. > > You may notice that the "working with the community" part > has been > largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully reading** all > of the > public discussion to date, the working group has not > actively worked > with the community (at large) or specific community > members. This is > because I wanted to first focus on getting all of the board > feedback > and getting background information, and that has taken > longer than I > hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion that any > changes can be > made in how this organization works with controversial > content (or > even happily keeping the status quo) without community > discussion > (which there has been a lot of), consensus (which the > recommendations > were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not yet emerged), > and hard > work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages along with > commons policy > pages as a good place to discuss the issue; and people can > still help > the working group by working on summarization, analysis, > and procedure > advice for going forward. > > I'll say that the board does not yet have a formal position > on this > whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much about that > for fear of > it being *taken* as an official board position. > > You may read this message and think "ok, they're doing > something" or > you may read this message and think "the board has totally > lost the > way/not done their job on this issue" or you may not care > :) Either > way, feel free to write me or us, publicly or privately. > Our next step > as a working group will be a report to the board, likely at > the march > meeting. > > -- phoebe > > > * recs 7 & 9: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options> ** I have also been working on summarizing all this > discussion; a big job. >

and the proposal was subsequently presented and discussed at the Board Meeting in Berlin, in late March.

How did that go? Any further developments?

Best, Andreas

--- On Sun, 20/2/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> wrote:

> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update > To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 22:54 > Hi Phoebe, > > Thank you very much for the update. > > Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and I am glad > there is some work being done on them. > > Do let us know again how things are progressing! > > Best, > Andreas > > --- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> > wrote: > > > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of > Controversial Content -- update > > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists> > > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] yahoo> > > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35 > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, > > Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> > > wrote: > > > Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an > update > > on the activities of > > > the working group looking into the > recommendations > > resulting from the 2010 > > > Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content? > > > > > > Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there > any > > plans or discussions about > > > implementing any of the recommendations? > > > > > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/215066?search_string=working%20group%20controversial%20content;#215066> > > > > > Andreas > > > > Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the slow > reply, > > I've been > > away on holiday the last couple of days and have not > been > > online. > > > > Also, my apologies for not posting an update before > you > > asked. Things > > have been slowly moving but as yet no conclusions. > > > > Here is what has happened since I sent my last > update: > > > > Over the winter holidays the membership of the > working > > group changed > > due to the workload of other board committees. > Jan-Bart and > > Kat > > stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy and > Bishakha; > > I am still > > involved and agreed to chair the group. Of course any > > recommendations > > for statements or resolutions will go to the whole > board. > > The Harrises > > are still involved as consultants on a > "paid-as-needed" > > basis; if we > > want them to do any further research or facilitation > they > > are > > available. > > > > In my last message, I wrote that "The working group > will be > > examining > > the recommendations more closely, soliciting Board > member > > feedback on > > each of the recommendations to a greater degree than > there > > was time > > for in the in-person meeting, working with the > community > > and finally > > making a report to the full Board. The working group > is > > expected to > > recommend next steps, including providing fuller > analysis > > of the > > recommendations." > > > > We did the first part of this (board member feedback); > and > > are > > currently working on the analysis part. As you know > the > > various > > recommendations fall into three kinds: philosophical, > > community-facing > > (such as changing specific community practices), and > > technical. I > > asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time looking > into > > the > > recommendations that require technical work (7 & > 9)* so > > that we can > > have more information about what's feasible and > possible, > > and what it > > would take on the wmf/tech side and the community > side. > > This does not > > mean they're developing these features now; it means > I > > asked for > > possible specifications (since I am unfamiliar with > what it > > would take > > in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the working group > can > > make a more > > informed recommendation. The WMF won't develop > anything > > without a > > board request. > > > > You may notice that the "working with the community" > part > > has been > > largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully reading** > all > > of the > > public discussion to date, the working group has not > > actively worked > > with the community (at large) or specific community > > members. This is > > because I wanted to first focus on getting all of the > board > > feedback > > and getting background information, and that has > taken > > longer than I > > hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion that > any > > changes can be > > made in how this organization works with > controversial > > content (or > > even happily keeping the status quo) without > community > > discussion > > (which there has been a lot of), consensus (which the > > recommendations > > were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not yet > emerged), > > and hard > > work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages along > with > > commons policy > > pages as a good place to discuss the issue; and people > can > > still help > > the working group by working on summarization, > analysis, > > and procedure > > advice for going forward. > > > > I'll say that the board does not yet have a formal > position > > on this > > whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much about > that > > for fear of > > it being *taken* as an official board position. > > > > You may read this message and think "ok, they're > doing > > something" or > > you may read this message and think "the board has > totally > > lost the > > way/not done their job on this issue" or you may not > care > > :) Either > > way, feel free to write me or us, publicly or > privately. > > Our next step > > as a working group will be a report to the board, > likely at > > the march > > meeting. > > > > -- phoebe > > > > > > * recs 7 & 9: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options> > ** I have also been working on summarizing all this > > discussion; a big job. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>

Well, as promised a report from the board working group was presented to the full board (including information on the draft spec that you linked below, which is open for comment but certainly not set in stone), the matter was discussed at the March meeting as one of the many items on the agenda, and after the meeting we have been discussing a board resolution/next steps. Pretty typical. The minutes for the march meeting should be out soon.

The upshot is that a resolution takes three weeks minimum from the time of being proposed to passing, except in extraordinary/emergency cases. Two weeks of discussion, then a week of voting, and that does not account for extra time spent writing various drafts or discussing, or delays caused by exhausted committee chairs :) The time period tries to take into account the schedules of 10 very busy people, at least a handful of whom are traveling at any given time, as well as allow for enough time to seriously debate each resolution and take care with the wording.

So that, in a nutshell, is why sometimes things seem to take forever! )

-- phoebe

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> wrote: > Hi Phoebe, > > What is the current status with regard to the recommendations from the > 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content? > > From what I can see, a proposal based on the study was generated at > > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter> > and the proposal was subsequently presented and discussed at the Board > Meeting in Berlin, in late March. > > How did that go? Any further developments? > > Best, > Andreas > > > > --- On Sun, 20/2/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> wrote: > >> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update >> To: "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail>, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists> >> Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 22:54 >> Hi Phoebe, >> >> Thank you very much for the update. >> >> Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and I am glad >> there is some work being done on them. >> >> Do let us know again how things are progressing! >> >> Best, >> Andreas >> >> --- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> >> wrote: >> >> > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> >> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of >> Controversial Content -- update >> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l [at] lists> >> > Cc: "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 [at] yahoo> >> > Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35 >> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, >> > Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] yahoo> >> > wrote: >> > > Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an >> update >> > on the activities of >> > > the working group looking into the >> recommendations >> > resulting from the 2010 >> > > Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content? >> > > >> > > Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there >> any >> > plans or discussions about >> > > implementing any of the recommendations? >> > > >> > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/215066?search_string=working%20group%20controversial%20content;#215066>> > > >> > > Andreas >> > >> > Hi Andreas! Thanks for asking. Sorry for the slow >> reply, >> > I've been >> > away on holiday the last couple of days and have not >> been >> > online. >> > >> > Also, my apologies for not posting an update before >> you >> > asked. Things >> > have been slowly moving but as yet no conclusions. >> > >> > Here is what has happened since I sent my last >> update: >> > >> > Over the winter holidays the membership of the >> working >> > group changed >> > due to the workload of other board committees. >> Jan-Bart and >> > Kat >> > stepped down and were replaced by Matt, Jimmy and >> Bishakha; >> > I am still >> > involved and agreed to chair the group. Of course any >> > recommendations >> > for statements or resolutions will go to the whole >> board. >> > The Harrises >> > are still involved as consultants on a >> "paid-as-needed" >> > basis; if we >> > want them to do any further research or facilitation >> they >> > are >> > available. >> > >> > In my last message, I wrote that "The working group >> will be >> > examining >> > the recommendations more closely, soliciting Board >> member >> > feedback on >> > each of the recommendations to a greater degree than >> there >> > was time >> > for in the in-person meeting, working with the >> community >> > and finally >> > making a report to the full Board. The working group >> is >> > expected to >> > recommend next steps, including providing fuller >> analysis >> > of the >> > recommendations." >> > >> > We did the first part of this (board member feedback); >> and >> > are >> > currently working on the analysis part. As you know >> the >> > various >> > recommendations fall into three kinds: philosophical, >> > community-facing >> > (such as changing specific community practices), and >> > technical. I >> > asked the WMF tech staff to spend some time looking >> into >> > the >> > recommendations that require technical work (7 & >> 9)* so >> > that we can >> > have more information about what's feasible and >> possible, >> > and what it >> > would take on the wmf/tech side and the community >> side. >> > This does not >> > mean they're developing these features now; it means >> I >> > asked for >> > possible specifications (since I am unfamiliar with >> what it >> > would take >> > in MediaWiki to make this happen) so the working group >> can >> > make a more >> > informed recommendation. The WMF won't develop >> anything >> > without a >> > board request. >> > >> > You may notice that the "working with the community" >> part >> > has been >> > largely absent this winter. Beyond carefully reading** >> all >> > of the >> > public discussion to date, the working group has not >> > actively worked >> > with the community (at large) or specific community >> > members. This is >> > because I wanted to first focus on getting all of the >> board >> > feedback >> > and getting background information, and that has >> taken >> > longer than I >> > hoped. Of course we're not under the illusion that >> any >> > changes can be >> > made in how this organization works with >> controversial >> > content (or >> > even happily keeping the status quo) without >> community >> > discussion >> > (which there has been a lot of), consensus (which the >> > recommendations >> > were meant to help catalyze but afaik has not yet >> emerged), >> > and hard >> > work. I'd still suggest the meta talk pages along >> with >> > commons policy >> > pages as a good place to discuss the issue; and people >> can >> > still help >> > the working group by working on summarization, >> analysis, >> > and procedure >> > advice for going forward. >> > >> > I'll say that the board does not yet have a formal >> position >> > on this >> > whole issue, and so I am hesitant to say much about >> that >> > for fear of >> > it being *taken* as an official board position. >> > >> > You may read this message and think "ok, they're >> doing >> > something" or >> > you may read this message and think "the board has >> totally >> > lost the >> > way/not done their job on this issue" or you may not >> care >> > :) Either >> > way, feel free to write me or us, publicly or >> privately. >> > Our next step >> > as a working group will be a report to the board, >> likely at >> > the march >> > meeting. >> > >> > -- phoebe >> > >> > >> > * recs 7 & 9: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options>> > ** I have also been working on summarizing all this >> > discussion; a big job. >> > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l [at] lists >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l [at] lists > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>

-- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *